With the election over, the "fiscal cliff" is the next big political topic for discussion.

Put simply, if a deal's not reached all those cuts to defense etc. go into place Jan 1, and the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone.

Only news thus far is Boehner is expressing some willingness to additional revenue. But his statements are pretty wishy washy and seem more in the direction of closing loopholes etc., rather than say letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the $250k and above households.

#3
Clak
Made of star stuff.
CAGiversary! 8079 Posts Joined 6.0 Years Ago

I'm really hoping things go a little different this time around, with Obama no longer worried about a re-election campaign. Then again I'm probably wrong, Democrats aren't known for standing up to anyone.

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

I for one am shocked that people are surprised Boehner just plans on cutting loopholes.

It also confuses me that when a party runs on a platform that corporations make too much, pay too little in taxes etc that when push comes to shove they have an issue with shutting down the loopholes that allow GE to pay zilch in taxes year after year.

There are no shortcuts. No do-overs. What happened, happened. Trust me. I know. All of this matters.

I for one am shocked that people are surprised Boehner just plans on cutting loopholes.

It also confuses me that when a party runs on a platform that corporations make too much, pay too little in taxes etc that when push comes to shove they have an issue with shutting down the loopholes that allow GE to pay zilch in taxes year after year.

Removing loopholes aka deductions is regressive(I shouldn't need to explain why) and combining them with lowering taxes across the board still benefits the rich more than the working class on an exponential level. Taxation is already at historically low levels and if you think that those deductions will just go away and not change into something else that accomplishes the same purpose, I have a bridge to sell you...and you think the guy that was handing out checks from tobacco lobbyists on the floor is going to spearhead this effort to make the wealthy and corporations pay MORE in tax AFTER he said he wants to lower rates? EL OH EL, dude.

We've already seen this conversation play out on vs: tax rates have no effect on hiring.

Here's what happened in a simple explanation.
Dad tells little Billy: "Hey Billy go buy a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, and some hot dogs from 7-11".

Billy goes to 7-11, picks the stuff up, takes it to the counter, the employee rings the stuff up and says: "That will be $10".

Billy now realizes that dad hasn't given him any money yet. He calls dad: "Dad, can you come down here and give me $10 for this stuff you asked me to buy?"

Dad: "Sure but you have to promise to only spend $8 next time"

The fiscal cliff is an artificial disaster Congress created. The debt ceiling was never an issue before. The government is told to spend money from Congress then when it tries to do so, Congress is telling it they can't until they spend less next time. Congress is the institution that demanded the spending in the first place! This fiscal cliff should just be written off the books entirely and they should work on the budget instead of this RIDICULOUS game of chicken.

Now we've got Bill at the 7-11 with the stuff telling dad: "I'm not going to buy ANYTHING unless you give me the money".
And you've got dad saying: "Fine, you can stay there all day with that stuff."
So we have gridlock. Mom's yelling at dad. The other kids are yelling at everyone else because they're not going to eat and Billie is being yelled at by everyone else in line.

I for one am shocked that people are surprised Boehner just plans on cutting loopholes.

It also confuses me that when a party runs on a platform that corporations make too much, pay too little in taxes etc that when push comes to shove they have an issue with shutting down the loopholes that allow GE to pay zilch in taxes year after year.

I have no problems with closing loopholes. That should be part of the solution. So should some spending cuts.

But it also needs to involve at the least letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those making $250K or more (I'd prefer letting them all expire personally), taxing capital gains as regular income, and making sure the estate tax laws stay in place (rather than expiring and going to zero).

My point above is that taxes and cuts should be debated in the budgetary process next year and they should roll back sequestration. To make an issue of the government spending the money you told them to spend makes no sense. Don't like the spending? Well there's a whole budget debate about that and it won't hold the whole fucking country hostage.

"President Barack Obama, laying down his marker for grueling budget and tax negotiations, said Friday he won't accept any approach to deficit reduction that doesn't ask the wealthy to pay more in taxes."

Boehner has made several gestures this week expressing a willingness to compromise.

I see him the way I see Lucy holding a football for Charlie Brown, but the framework from the public perspective (Boehner being conciliatory, Obama standing firm) is quite the opposite of what we experienced in the past.

Boehner has made several gestures this week expressing a willingness to compromise.

I see him the way I see Lucy holding a football for Charlie Brown, but the framework from the public perspective (Boehner being conciliatory, Obama standing firm) is quite the opposite of what we experienced in the past.

Yeah that is what Boehner said on Wed but then on Thursday he said raising taxes was "unaccepatble". The only thing he would agree to was basically the Romney tax plan. Well guess what Mr Speaker your guy's plan lost.

Huh. I thought he said something about compromise today, though. Guess I was wrong.

Been a busy week, so I haven't been paying much attention since Tuesday night.

This is going to come down to the last second. We'll probably go over the fiscal cliff because the far right tea party won't allow the Republican's to compromise and Obama holds all the cards this time. If they don't compromise, ALL Bush's tax cuts sunset and Obama wins.

More I've thought about it recently, we NEED to go over the cliff. Then, conceivably, it would be the GOP agreeing to ,technically, a tax cut proposed by the President due to the rates going up on everybody. I get the feeling Boehner will try to rally them together near the very end and focus on a plea bargain of sorts since they don't want their precious defense spending to get slashed. Lawrence O'Donnell makes an interesting case of where good ol Grover Norquist's Pledge would fit into all this.

But it also needs to involve at the least letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those making $250K or more (I'd prefer letting them all expire personally), taxing capital gains as regular income, and making sure the estate tax laws stay in place (rather than expiring and going to zero).

No one wants to hear you whine again about how tough you have it working in a useless profession making over $200k and how that's not enough because you choose to live in expensive area, to pop out a bunch of crib midgets with your wife etc.

Of course the deficit matters in that it can't grow indefinitely. Krugman's point is that we don't have a deficit crisis right now. Countries are lining up buying our debt, keeping interest rates at all time lows.

The bigger priority is upping spending with more stimulus so we truly get out of this recession and don't descend into another one, and that we can do that without triggering a deficit crisis.

Best way to finance that? Tax the rich more. Helps pay for that, and works at paying down the deficit some later when the economy is back on track as the deficit can't grow unchecked indefinitely.

Regardless, I don't feel that it "looks like we care" about our spending problem by simply increasing our income by what would be a relatively trivial amount (in comparison to our current spending levels and in comparison to the overall debt level).

Of course the deficit matters in that it can't grow indefinitely. Krugman's point is that we don't have a deficit crisis right now. Countries are lining up buying our debt, keeping interest rates at all time lows.

So, basically, the argument is that we should focus on short-term goals.

I see no problem with that.

Best way to finance that? Tax the rich more. Helps pay for that, and works at paying down the deficit some later when the economy is back on track as the deficit can't grow unchecked indefinitely.

I just know that someone is grinding their teeth over the misuse of debt vs. deficit...

Is higher taxes the best way to finance social spending?I tend to believe that cutting spending in other areas (in particular, military/defense) would be the better way to finance it. That's not to say the entire tax situation doesn't need to be looked at, but when our government has had unchecked spending for so long, I'd prefer to see them show that they do have restraint and control (and common sense) before giving them more money.

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

Is higher taxes the best way to finance social spending?I tend to believe that cutting spending in other areas (in particular, military/defense) would be the better way to finance it. That's not to say the entire tax situation doesn't need to be looked at, but when our government has had unchecked spending for so long, I'd prefer to see them show that they do have restraint and control (and common sense) before giving them more money.

Greenspan thought that giving the govt less money (IE reducing taxes) would force the govt to go on a budget diet. Didn't work out that way.

The answer is that we tax appropriately and reduce spending when we can. Vote for politicians who will tax the rich and take a hard look at military budgets - it's the win/win we're all looking for (and by we I mean the 99%).

Let the Javerys of the world look out for themselves, the rich always do juuuust fine...

No one wants to hear you whine again about how tough you have it working in a useless profession making over $200k and how that's not enough because you choose to live in expensive area, to pop out a bunch of crib midgets with your wife etc.

Jeez dude - chill the F out. I already pay more taxes by making more money and being in a higher tax bracket. I don't need to pay more on top of that for "society" or some other bullshit reason. Also, I've never said I had it tough - the only complaint I've ever had is when people try to propose new rules and apply a blanket dollar threshold without taking into consideration any other factors.

By providing links to other sites, CheapAssGamer.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to CheapAssGamer.com. CheapAssGamer.com is owned and operated by CAG Productions, LLC.

Please read our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using CheapAssGamer.com.